Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 some bloke wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The only difference between a unit with 8 wounds and DR and a unit 12 wounds is how lucky your dice are.

Part of that comes down to perception though. As an attacking player, it is more demoralizing to see "damage nullified, you can do nothing about this" than it is to successfully deal damage to a model with bigger wound count. The later makes the game feel more interactive, even if it is essentially the same.

Heck, keeping this example 8 wound model at 8 and giving it 4 "damage reduction" per turn could even be a more interesting mechanic - the opposing player needs to make sure they bring enough damage to bear to knock down the DR before hurting the actual model.

Then again, I kind of feel invulnerable saves should be extremely rare in the game, and that Toughness, Wounds, and regular Saves should be tinkered with to make things more survivable instead of just saying "you ignore 1/3 of incoming damage now".

I agree with this, invulns are far too common and really we need to look at whether they can implement durability representations which are easier to find solutions to.

EG:

X++ as a dodge save = make it harder to hit
X++ as a shield type invuln = make it harder to wound
X+++ as an feel-no-pain = give it more wounds

To make this work properly, things need their own statistic which denotes how easily they can be hit - a "Target" statistic, perhaps?

That way you can make dodging units hard to hit, and make invulnerable units higher toughness, and make feel no pain units have lots of wounds, and job done.

What effect would it give the game if stormshields gave +2 toughness? anti-tank wounds on 3's not 2's, lasguns wound on 6's, and volcano cannons and stuff still blow them apart.

Since 2nd ed I've argued that they already had that stat - initiative, and that both WS and BS should be opposed rolls against it.

You can solve a lot of design space requirements by doing that - eldar and tyranids with High I become harder to hit, thereby using speed as a defence. BS doesn't get compressed like it has forever, but becomes a comparative hit score functioning just like WS.

High WS characters don't hit each other on 2+, making the game more tactical around who and what you shoot/charge at.

You reduce the need for special defensive rules - Solitaires with I10 become very hard to hit, so they don't necessarily need special invulnerable saves. Fast moving units can get bonuses to their Initiative, making them hard to hit by shooting units.

BS can scale and veteran units can actually be distinguished from normal units without it over balancing the game - WS/BS 5 terminators, BS4 sisters, BS8 exarchs etc.


One simple change - add Initiative back to the game and make it the opposed value against WS and BS and you instantly create more diversity.

 Tyran wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Mortal Wounds as a replacement for all psychic attack powers, though, while also deflating wound counts for vehicles?

The first part is bad, I agree, but please explain the second.

Deflating wound counts, my guess is he means that vehicles die too easily by 9th edition standards. In a game where a Heavy bolter wounds basically every vehicle in the game on 5s its not hard to see what he means. Add in the dmg bonuses everyone keeps getting and I see his point.

Super Melta is now a thing D6+4 melta guns which shoot twice at the same target.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Mortal Wounds as a replacement for all psychic attack powers, though, while also deflating wound counts for vehicles?

The first part is bad, I agree, but please explain the second.

Deflating wound counts, my guess is he means that vehicles die too easily by 9th edition standards. In a game where a Heavy bolter wounds basically every vehicle in the game on 5s its not hard to see what he means. Add in the dmg bonuses everyone keeps getting and I see his point.

Super Melta is now a thing D6+4 melta guns which shoot twice at the same target.

Eh, you could one shot a tank for several editions by rolling well on the damage table.Vehicles have always fell into a weird place and are proof that GW doesn't know what to do with them or monstrous creatures.

 vipoid wrote:
Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

Corollary: Mortal wounds are a great idea implemented in a terrible fashion (ie. typical GW).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

Corollary: Mortal wounds are a great idea implemented in a terrible fashion (ie. typical GW).

I can agree with that. It cleaned up a lot of bespoke "ignore armour and invul" save things we had.

I feel like they over simplified psychic power options though. I miss the witchfire and aura attack abilities they had.

I miss Warp Blast not being just Smite+.

They oversimplified way too much with psychic powers.

 Hellebore wrote:

One simple change - add Initiative back to the game and make it the opposed value against WS and BS and you instantly create more diversity.

Done properly, you'd have WS and BS vs Initiative, and Str vs Toughness.

To make it easy, use the same scale for hitting as for wounding, IE:

Skill double I or more? Hit on 2+
Skill greater than I but not double? Hit on 3+
Skill equal to I, hit on 4+
Skill less than I but not half? Hit on 5+
Skill half of I or less? Hit on 6

Taa daa.

Just like that, Eldar, with a high Initiative, get to be jumpyflippy people that are hard to hit, smaller bugs are also hard to hit, while larger bugs are easy to hit because they move slower but have higher Toughness as a counterweight. (Well, I hit the thing on 3's but I wound it on 5's.)

It's an elegant solution to a lot of problems, honestly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I miss Warp Blast not being just Smite+.

They oversimplified way too much with psychic powers.

Definitely. Maybe they'll fix it, but I don't think they'll do it this edition.

My big hope for 9th is that they do something to fix vehicles and monstrous creatures to feel like the big tanky things they should be.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like they over simplified psychic power options though. I miss the witchfire and aura attack abilities they had.

There are still some aura attacks in the game, they are just few and far between.

As for witchfires - I agree that bringing back proper shooting profiles would allow for more diverse powers, but then again the only armies really suffering from this are those with multiple psychic disciplines.
DG for example have two powers that deal mortal wounds, and they feel quite different from each other and neither is a straight up smite+ like many of the tzeench powers are.

The one thing that shouldn't come back is power requiring BS to hit, that was just stupid all around.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I miss Warp Blast not being just Smite+.

They oversimplified way too much with psychic powers.

Definitely. Maybe they'll fix it, but I don't think they'll do it this edition.

My big hope for 9th is that they do something to fix vehicles and monstrous creatures to feel like the big tanky things they should be.

They have for some. Relentless Hatred, Smokescreen, and Quantam Shielding make dreadnoughts, tanks and Necron vehicles tougher. We just have to see what they do for other faction's vehicles and MCs.

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like they over simplified psychic power options though. I miss the witchfire and aura attack abilities they had.

There are still some aura attacks in the game, they are just few and far between.

As for witchfires - I agree that bringing back proper shooting profiles would allow for more diverse powers, but then again the only armies really suffering from this are those with multiple psychic disciplines.
DG for example have two powers that deal mortal wounds, and they feel quite different from each other and neither is a straight up smite+ like many of the tzeench powers are.

The one thing that shouldn't come back is power requiring BS to hit, that was just stupid all around.

I agree, no BS to hit just a successful cast. And I feel like one smite-esk power and one shooting power (say for Nurgle, perhaps a storm of flies that hits every non-Nurgle model in 6" with a S4, Ap-1, D1 profile) would go a long way. I like mortals, but I don't think every attack needs to be based on mortal wounds which would allow us to see different kinds of crowd control powers, or lance powers (draw a line powers that hit every unit it passes over X times).

There is depth there that I feel got left out and that's a shame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I miss Warp Blast not being just Smite+.

They oversimplified way too much with psychic powers.

Definitely. Maybe they'll fix it, but I don't think they'll do it this edition.

My big hope for 9th is that they do something to fix vehicles and monstrous creatures to feel like the big tanky things they should be.

They have for some. Relentless Hatred, Smokescreen, and Quantam Shielding make dreadnoughts, tanks and Necron vehicles tougher. We just have to see what they do for other faction's vehicles and MCs.

Exactly. I don't have a lot of hopes for this edition, but that's the one I've got.

I fear the durability ship has already sailed. If GW were going to make Toughness/Wounds and vehicle durability a priority, they would have done so by now. Instead we've got less swingy and more consistent damage almost across the board, higher damage overall, and a continued fear of giving things T8 and beyond.

 Jidmah wrote:
The one thing that shouldn't come back is power requiring BS to hit, that was just stupid all around.

This is a very good point. The psychic test should be the "To Hit", otherwise you're creating a different kind of shooting that just has more steps.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The one thing that shouldn't come back is power requiring BS to hit, that was just stupid all around.

This is a very good point. The psychic test should be the "To Hit", otherwise you're creating a different kind of shooting that just has more steps.

I could see a Psy-Activated or Force gun, that has a weak profile normally, and a much better one on a passed psychic test.

But that's enhancing something, which is pretty normal with psychic powers.

What we don't want is for something like Smite to require a To Hit roll after you've passed the psychic test.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But that's enhancing something, which is pretty normal with psychic powers.

What we don't want is for something like Smite to require a To Hit roll after you've passed the psychic test.

Yeah, just make the psychic test easier or harder based on how hard it is to hit with and leave the BS roll out of it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But that's enhancing something, which is pretty normal with psychic powers.

What we don't want is for something like Smite to require a To Hit roll after you've passed the psychic test.

I getcha. And yeah, I'm with ya.

Or make it like the Daemons, whose "psychic powers" half of the time are just shooting attacks.

GW seems to be trying to account for every bullet fired on the battlefield, and in a poor way.

The game needs to go back to one model, one wound, one attack.

The advantage of modern/future weapons isn't so much spray n' pray. It's that you don't have to reload between each target. Three round burst isn't three attacks separate attacks - it's one attack with a better chance to kill.

Save the multiple attacks for those weapons that really hit multiple targets at once, like flamethrowers, heavy MG vs. infantry (but not vehicles) and blast weapons.

And cut the game back to a couple squads plus a single IFV/Tank (or two) in support. Instead, it's become Epic on a table too small for the ranges.

 Stormonu wrote:
The game needs to go back to one model, one wound, one attack.

No thanks. I've always considered each attack being a group of attacks. Like a controlled burst from a bolter for each shot. Wounds are a way to increase durability without upping saves, stacking on invuls or mucking with toughness.

I'd want them to do something with toughness too, but honestly models with a single wound when they're supposed to represent things that are nigh impossible to bring down in a single attack? That is just a bit of a mess.

 Stormonu wrote:
GW seems to be trying to account for every bullet fired on the battlefield, and in a poor way.

I don't agree that they are. Rapid Fire and multi-shot weapons are abstractions.

A Heavy Bolter isn't firing 3 shots. It's firing a two dozen or so, represented by 3 shots. A Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon doesn't fire 12 rounds. It likely fires off 50-100 in a single burst, but it is represented by that 12 shots.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
GW seems to be trying to account for every bullet fired on the battlefield, and in a poor way.

I don't agree that they are. Rapid Fire and multi-shot weapons are abstractions.

A Heavy Bolter isn't firing 3 shots. It's firing a two dozen or so, represented by 3 shots. A Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon doesn't fire 12 rounds. It likely fires off 50-100 in a single burst, but it is represented by that 12 shots.

Likewise model isn't making a single swing, each attack is a chain of attacks. The numbers are all abstractions.

 Stormonu wrote:
GW seems to be trying to account for every bullet fired on the battlefield, and in a poor way.

The game needs to go back to one model, one wound, one attack.

The advantage of modern/future weapons isn't so much spray n' pray. It's that you don't have to reload between each target. Three round burst isn't three attacks separate attacks - it's one attack with a better chance to kill.

Save the multiple attacks for those weapons that really hit multiple targets at once, like flamethrowers, heavy MG vs. infantry (but not vehicles) and blast weapons.

And cut the game back to a couple squads plus a single IFV/Tank (or two) in support. Instead, it's become Epic on a table too small for the ranges.

Um, you know you can play at lower points levels, right? Also, agreed with other posters that the number of attacks/shots is an abstraction.

The number of shots is indeed an abstraction, but like every other abstraction, GW lost the connection to reality long ago.

Back in the day, assault cannons fired so many bullets in rapid secession that they gained the Rending special rule, enabling them to have some efficacy against armored targets. The Punisher Cannon fired five times as many shots in the same abstract time-step without rending.

Now, assault cannons no longer have Rending, but that's rather beside the point - they still have 4 shots. It seems that at one point in history, 4 shots was a staggering rate of fire that was so intense that it could chew through armor plate while 20 shots in the same time step was not.

This indicates to me that GW, again, is making decisions based on board-gamey mechanics (this unit has lots o' dice because it's a cool unit with cool guns!) rather than attempting to abstract a reality (this unit has lots of dice because it has a higher-than-average rate of fire compared to, say, an assault cannon).

The attack stat is an abstraction of the real rate of fire, but not only that. It also abstracts reload times, aiming times and encumbrance of the weapon.

The attack stats represents how many targets the weapon can kill in a single attack action, given perfect conditions.

You can see this with the intercessor bolters.

The rapid fire one is supposed to have heavier cartridges than the assault one, so keeping your burst to kill multiple targets is something that you can do only at short ranges.

The assault version doesn't shoot faster, but it is much easier to aim with, to reload and has lower recoil. This means that in ideal conditions, in a short time span you can aim and kill up to 3 targets.

ClockworkZion wrote:No thanks. I've always considered each attack being a group of attacks. Like a controlled burst from a bolter for each shot.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't agree that they are. Rapid Fire and multi-shot weapons are abstractions.

A Heavy Bolter isn't firing 3 shots. It's firing a two dozen or so, represented by 3 shots.

ClockworkZion wrote:Likewise model isn't making a single swing, each attack is a chain of attacks. The numbers are all abstractions.

I'm confused by the disagreement here because you guys seem to be saying exactly the same thing as Stormonu. Each 'shot' or 'attack' represents a succession of shots or a chain of attacks, and each bullet or swing doesn't need to be modeled individually.

Stormonu's argument is that with this abstraction in mind, you could give most basic infantry 1 attack in melee and 1 shot at range, and then with the overall lethality reduced, scale back to basic infantry having 1 wound, and reserve multi-attacks or multi-shots for equipment that it's really relevant to.

 catbarf wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:No thanks. I've always considered each attack being a group of attacks. Like a controlled burst from a bolter for each shot.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't agree that they are. Rapid Fire and multi-shot weapons are abstractions.

A Heavy Bolter isn't firing 3 shots. It's firing a two dozen or so, represented by 3 shots.

ClockworkZion wrote:Likewise model isn't making a single swing, each attack is a chain of attacks. The numbers are all abstractions.

I'm confused by the disagreement here because you guys seem to be saying exactly the same thing as Stormonu. Each 'shot' or 'attack' represents a succession of shots or a chain of attacks, and each bullet or swing doesn't need to be modeled individually.

Stormonu's argument is that with this abstraction in mind, you could give most basic infantry 1 attack in melee and 1 shot at range, and then with the overall lethality reduced, scale back to basic infantry having 1 wound, and reserve multi-attacks or multi-shots for equipment that it's really relevant to.

Attacks, wounds and number of shots all help flavor the game though. A long standing problem with Astartes of all flavors was a lack of the proper game feel. Canonically they fight long past when a normal human would be dead, but in 40k a single wound getting past your save could drop a Marine.

Again, no thanks going back to that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:No thanks. I've always considered each attack being a group of attacks. Like a controlled burst from a bolter for each shot.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't agree that they are. Rapid Fire and multi-shot weapons are abstractions.

A Heavy Bolter isn't firing 3 shots. It's firing a two dozen or so, represented by 3 shots.

ClockworkZion wrote:Likewise model isn't making a single swing, each attack is a chain of attacks. The numbers are all abstractions.

I'm confused by the disagreement here because you guys seem to be saying exactly the same thing as Stormonu. Each 'shot' or 'attack' represents a succession of shots or a chain of attacks, and each bullet or swing doesn't need to be modeled individually.

Stormonu's argument is that with this abstraction in mind, you could give most basic infantry 1 attack in melee and 1 shot at range, and then with the overall lethality reduced, scale back to basic infantry having 1 wound, and reserve multi-attacks or multi-shots for equipment that it's really relevant to.

Attacks, wounds and number of shots all help flavor the game though. A long standing problem with Astartes of all flavors was a lack of the proper game feel. Canonically they fight long past when a normal human would be dead, but in 40k a single wound getting past your save could drop a Marine.

Again, no thanks going back to that.

Why is Wounds the only abstraction of that? A bolt round that wounded on 3s would kill a normal human but would not put down an astartes, conversely a multilaser round wounds both on 2s but would evaporate even an exceptional human while only inconveniencing an exceptional astartes.

There were already statline differences to account for the increased durability of Marines relative to humans. Those weren't "enough" in light of some bolter-porn novels, but were certainly sufficient in light of the overall fluff (e.g. single lasguns/mortar hits/grenades killing Marines in lots of novels).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Attacks, wounds and number of shots all help flavor the game though. A long standing problem with Astartes of all flavors was a lack of the proper game feel. Canonically they fight long past when a normal human would be dead, but in 40k a single wound getting past your save could drop a Marine.

I think if Marine players can currently handle the flavor/game feel of their super elite special forces unit being no easier to command, no quicker to react, and no more coordinated than a horde of squabbling Orks, then surely the abstraction of having one wound (but made appropriately harder to kill through other stats) wouldn't be a dealbreaker, once they got over the 'I had something and now it's gone' knee-jerk reaction.

Especially if it resulted in an environment where everyone wasn't throwing tons of dice at them and scooping Marines up by the handful.

I've been playing on and off since 3rd: having one wound always made Marines feel more fragile than they should be. It didn't balance the game more.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've been playing on and off since 3rd: having one wound always made Marines feel more fragile than they should be. It didn't balance the game more.

I've basically played constantly since 3rd (swapping to HH for most of 7th) and having one wound but T4 3+ always made marines feel exactly as durable as they should be - I'm more concerned with narrative than game balance.

How could it be we're both correct? Oh right, it's subjective.